Compagnie Financiere du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1883 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Practice - Production of Documents - Affidavit of Documents - Application for further Affidavit - “Material to any Matter in Question in the Action” -
Documents are material to the matters in question in the action within the meaning of Order XXXI., rule 12, if it is not unreasonable to suppose that they may contain information directly or indirectly enabling the party seeking discovery, either to advance his own case, or to damage the case of his adversary.
The plaintiff company sued the defendant company for breach of contract: the defence to the action was that no contract had been concluded, and that only negotiations had taken place between the parties. The defendants having obtained an order for an affidavit of documents, the plaintiffs set out, amongst others, their minute-book, which referred to certain documents and letters; the entries as to these documents and letters were of a date subsequent to the date of the alleged breach of contract; the documents and letters were not set out by the plaintiffs in their affidavit. The defendants claimed a further and better affidavit from the plaintiffs, setting out the documents and letters above-mentioned, on the ground that they might show that after the alleged breach the parties were still negotiating, and might tend to disprove the plaintiffs' allegation that a contract had been concluded:—
Held, that the plaintiffs were bound to make a further affidavit of documents.
APPEAL by the defendants from a decision of a Divisional Court, affirming an order of Pearson, J., for limited affidavit as to documents.
The plaintiffs claimed specific performance of an agreement entered into with the defendants for the delivery of certain stocks of guano which were in their hands; the plaintiffs further claimed damages for delay in performing the agreement, and also an injunction.
The defendants were agents under a contract made with the Republic of Peru, whereby the Republic assigned all guano to the defendants for sale in England, and also in various countries in Europe. An action of detinue was brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants, in which the plaintiffs alleged that they had become the assignees of the Republic of Peru for all guano, which was in the possession of the defendants. Pending this action, the plaintiffs commenced the present action, in which they alleged that the parties had entered into negotiations for the settlement of the first action, and for the delivery of the guano, and that such negotiations terminated in a verbal agreement on the 6th of October, 1881, which was subsequently embodied in writing and sent to the defendants to London to sign; but that the defendants declined to sign it and to carry out the arrangement. The day of the alleged breach was the 1st of November. The defence alleged that the persons who negotiated the arrangement were not authorized to do so on behalf of the respective companies; and, further, that the matter never went beyond negotiation, and continued negotiation up to, and subsequent to, the 6th of October.
The defendants obtained an order under Rules of the Supreme Court, 1875, Order XXXI. rule 12, for an affidavit of documents. The plaintiffs, by their manager, made an affidavit of documents in the usual form, in which they disclosed, inter alia, the minute-book of the proceedings of the plaintiff company. The defendants claimed discovery of the following documents, which were disclosed in the minute-book: first, drafts of arrangement between the Peruvian Guano Company, and the plaintiff company, referred to in the board minutes of the plaintiff company, dated the 28th of September, 1881; secondly, the letter and two telegrams received by the plaintiffs from Mr. Adams, referred to in the board minutes of the plaintiff company, dated the 2nd of November, 1881; thirdly, two further drafts relating to the form of communication to be made, and the letter from M. de Germiny to M. Homberg, respectively referred to in the board minutes, dated the 3rd of November, 1881; fourthly, a letter addressed to Mr. Adam, referred to in the board minutes, dated the 8th of November, 1881; and, fifthly, several letters written from London by Mr. Adam to the plaintiff company, or directors thereof, and the several letters and telegrams sent by the plaintiff company, or directors thereof, to Mr. Adam, as referred to in the board minutes, dated the 16th of November, 1881. The minute with regard to documents No. 2, was in French, to the following effect:— “The president reads a letter and two despatches received from Mr. Adam, at this moment in London, which unfold to the company the new difficulties which the Peruvian Guano Company raise, who seem no longer willing to carry out their engagements.”
The defendants took out a summons for further affidavit of documents. The master declined to make an order. On appeal, Pearson, J., sitting at chambers, made an order for a further affidavit of documents as to No. 1, on the ground that they were in existence before the date of the alleged contract; and he refused the application as to the remainder. In the Queen's Bench Division, the Court (Field and Stephen, JJ.,) were divided in opinion, Field, J., thinking that the documents ought to be produced, while Stephen, J., thought that the decision of Pearson, J., was right. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The defendants appealed to this Court.
Dec. 16, 20. Shiress Will, for the defendants. The defendants are entitled to an order for a further affidavit as to documents on the part of the plaintiffs. The affidavit which has been made has disclosed certain entries in the minute book of the plaintiff company, and amongst these is one of the 2nd of November, 1881, which refers to a letter and two telegrams, and there are others of the 3rd, 8th, and 16th of November, 1881...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edward Keating v Radio Telefís Éireann and Others
...v Revenue Commissioners (Unrep, Supreme Court, 27/3/1996); Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacificque v Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55; Sterling-Winthrop Group Ltd v Farbenfabriken Bayer AG [1967] IR 97; Ryanair plc v Aer Rianta cpt [2003] 4 IR 264; Taylor v Clonmel Health......
-
Victoria Hall Management Ltd v Cox
...Project are clearly relevant in the sense that that term is used in Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano (1882) 11 Q.B.D. 55 (“ Peruvian Guano”) as recently discussed and applied the Supreme Court in Tobin v. Minister for Defence [2019] IESC 57 ( “Tobin”). The......
-
Wallace Smith Trust Company Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Delloitte Haskins & Sells (A Firm) and Another
...the liquidators was advanced on the following lines: (1) The general principle underlying discovery was that set out by Brett L.J. in The Peruvian Guano Co. case (1882) 11 QBD 55 where he said at 63: "It seems to me that every document relates to the matter in question in the action, which ......
-
Ryanair p.l.c. v Aer Rianta c.p.t.
... ... -FLYNN V RTE 2000 3 IR 343 COMPAGNIE FINANCIERE V PERUVIAN GUANO CO 1882 11 QB 55 ... in Compagnie Financiere v Peruvian Guano Company [1882] 11 Q.B.D. 55 at 63 (quoted below) ... ...
-
Important Hong Kong Decision Broadens Scope of Disclosure for SFC in Disqualification Proceedings
...Tee (2003) 6 HKCFAR 336 at [156]. 7 See SFC v Wong at [29]. 8Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Co (1882) 11 QBD 55, 62–63 9 See SFC v Wong at [30]. 10 See SFC v Wong at [41]. 11 See SFC v Wong at [32]. 12 Li Kwok Keung Asser v Securities and Futures Commi......
-
Table of Cases
...(Div. Ct.) ............................................ 132 The Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55 (C.A.) .......................................................................... 172 Thomas W. Sayle Transport Ltd. v. Rivers, [1955] O.W......
-
English fiduciary standards and trust law.
...(98.) See generally Hartigan Nominees Pty Ltd. v. Rydge (1992) 29 N.S.W.L.R. 405. (99.) See Compagnie Financiere v. Peruvian Guano Co., 11 Q.B.D. 55, 63 (C.A. (100.) In Hartigan, 29 N.S.W.L.R. 405, the three Court of Appeal judges' views differed. (101.) See Re Hay's Settlement Trusts, [198......
-
Electronic discovery issues: disclosure requirements in Britain, Canada, and Australia.
...M. Co., [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 374, at 351, per Colman J. Formulations of the test of relevance vary widely. See Compagnie Financiere, (1882) 11 Q.B.D. 55. It has been held in Canada that relevant information need not "be directly on point, and must be produced if it may tend to prove or dis......
-
Open Door Disclosure in Civil Litigation
...Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (1995) ch. 21, para. 20.40 Compagnie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique vPeruvian Guano Co. (1882) 11 QBD 55 at grounds in a given case to doubt whether the disclosure was adequate, which canlead to satellite litigation over disclosure. According......